I don't get it and maybe some one can explain it to me.
If the Supreme Court of the United States of America has firmly declared that the right to bear arms is an individual one then why is Massachusetts still requiring licenses, training, fees, etc for the privilege to exercise our second amendment rights? Under the ruling isn't such an action by the state now firmly considered unconstitutional, ergo illegal? After all, I don't see anyone being charged fees to invoke their first amendment rights.
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do they not understand?
If the Supreme Court of the United States of America has firmly declared that the right to bear arms is an individual one then why is Massachusetts still requiring licenses, training, fees, etc for the privilege to exercise our second amendment rights? Under the ruling isn't such an action by the state now firmly considered unconstitutional, ergo illegal? After all, I don't see anyone being charged fees to invoke their first amendment rights.
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do they not understand?